GAO-03-617R Defense Spectrum Management

United States General Accounting Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

April 30, 2003 

The Honorable John Warner 

Chairman 

The Honorable Carl Levin 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter 

Chairman 

The Honorable Ike Skelton 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

Subject: Spectrum Management in Defense Acquisitions 

The electromagnetic radio frequency spectrum is critical to the development and 

operation of a variety of military systems such as radios, radars, and satellites. Due 

to the changing nature of warfighting, more and more military systems depend on the 

spectrum to guide precision weapons and obtain information superiority. In recent 

years, demand for the spectrum increased with advances in commercial technology. 

This demand has led to competition between government and nongovernment users, 

making spectrum management vital to prevent harmful interference and to promote 

spectrum efficiency. 

With these goals in mind, DOD has long-standing policies and procedures that require 

system developers and acquirers to consider and deal with spectrum supportability 

knowledge early in the development and acquisition of systems. Early assessment of 

spectrum needs provides DOD the opportunity to identify, and therefore, better 

manage program and operational risks. DOD policy requires developers of spectrum 

dependent systems to obtain certification before assumption of contractual 

obligations for the full-scale development, production, or procurement of those 

systems. 
Page 2 GAO-03-617R Defense Spectrum Management

Senate Report 107-151 and House Report 106-945 required us to assess the 

Department of Defense’s (DOD) spectrum management process.1

 We focused our 

assessment on (1) the results of the DOD spectrum certification processes and (2) the 

reasons for those results. To determine the results of DOD’s spectrum certification 

processes and the reasons for those results, we reviewed relevant program 

documents and interviewed key officials. We also sent out a data collection 

instrument to selected research and development and user commands to further 

identify and gather information on spectrum-dependent systems currently being 

developed or acquired. We conducted our work from April 2002 through March 2003 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards and relied 

upon agency-provided data. This report transmits the information provided in earlier 

briefings. (See enc. I) 

We found that DOD’s weapons programs have often failed to obtain, consider, or act 

upon adequate spectrum supportability knowledge during the early stages of 

acquisition. A majority of programs try to gain this knowledge at later stages, after 

key system development decisions may have been made. As a result, some programs 

experience significant delays, reduced operational capabilities, or the need for 

expensive redesign. More importantly, these programs missed opportunities to 

improve program results and avoid problems that are more costly to resolve late in 

development or fielding. 

Also, in a review of selected programs still under development, we found that 

consideration of spectrum supportability continues to be a problem. DOD is still 

entering into contracts, starting full-scale development, and sometimes fielding 

systems before obtaining certification of spectrum supportability. 

The reasons for this late attention include program managers’ lack of awareness of 

spectrum certification requirements, dated and unclear spectrum management 

guidance that is not aligned with current acquisition models, the competing demands 

of program managers, and a lack of effective enforcement mechanisms for existing 

spectrum certification requirements. Additional challenges to DOD implementing the 

spectrum certification process include the lengthy spectrum certification process, 

increased reliance on commercial communications services and cutting-edge 

technologies that challenge the traditional allocation of spectrum frequencies. 

Recommendations for Executive Action 

To avoid delays, reduced operational capabilities, and costly redesign of weapon 

systems, we are making recommendations to ensure that spectrum supportability 

considerations are appropriately addressed in the development and acquisition of 

weapon systems. We recommend that the Secretary of Defense 

• Direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 

Logistics; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, 

 

1

 Senate Report 107-151, "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003" [To accompany S. 

2514]; and House Report 106-945 "Enactment of Provisions of H.R. 5408, The Floyd D. Spence National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001," Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 4205; 

October 6, 2000. 
Page 3 GAO-03-617R Defense Spectrum Management 

Communications and Intelligence; and appropriate service officials to 

update the spectrum supportability guidance contained in their respective 

spectrum management and acquisition policy directives and instructions to 

• Ensure program managers develop spectrum supportability knowledge, 

apply for spectrum certification, and consider spectrum operational 

risks at the earliest points possible, 

• Provide uniformity of spectrum management policies across the 

services, and 

• Provide a spectrum certification process with the flexibility to align 

with current acquisition models. 

• Measure spectrum management compliance and process performance to 

determine how well spectrum supportability considerations are addressed 

in the acquisition process. 

• Establish and ensure appropriate funding for a program of record to 

develop a spectrum management automation architecture and to 

implement current and future spectrum management automation 

development efforts. 

We also recommend that the Secretary of Defense identify an official or officials 

within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 

Logistics to 

• Be accountable for oversight and enforcement of spectrum management in 

the acquisition process, 

• Establish a mechanism to identify to the spectrum management community 

new systems that may ultimately require spectrum certification, 

• Establish a mechanism that provides the spectrum management 

community program schedule data for systems that may require spectrum 

certification both to facilitate its prioritization of work effort and enable 

measurement of process enforcement and responsiveness, and 

• Establish a mechanism to ensure—in line with DOD Directive 4650.1—that 

programs requiring spectrum certification do not proceed beyond 

Milestone B of the acquisition process without approved spectrum 

certification. In order to allow acquisition flexibility when required, 

waivers may be allowed by the official or officials identified within the 

Office of the Under Secretary based on appropriate cause, risk mitigation 

strategy, and compliance deadline. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 

In providing oral comments on a draft of our report, DOD agreed with our findings 

and concurred or partially concurred with our recommendations. Specifically, in our 

first set of recommendations, DOD concurred with our recommendation to update 

the spectrum supportability guidance in its spectrum management and acquisition 
Page 4 GAO-03-617R Defense Spectrum Management

policy directives and instructions, but stated that it would like GAO to clarify whether 

our recommendation applies to the previous DOD 5000-series acquisition 

publications or the current versions. We believe that the current and future versions 

of those publications need to address the issues identified in our recommendation. 

DOD also concurred with our recommendation regarding the need to measure 

spectrum management compliance and process performance, but indicated that the 

resources to be expended implementing this recommendation could be better 

directed towards improving oversight and enforcement mechanisms in the 

acquisition process. While we believe that improved oversight and enforcement are 

important, it will be difficult for DOD to determine effective actions for improving 

oversight and enforcement without performance measures. 

DOD partially concurred with our recommendation to establish and ensure 

appropriate funding for a program of record to develop a spectrum automation 

architecture and to implement future spectrum automation development efforts. 

DOD correctly understood the intent of the recommendation, but suggested that we 

clarify it by adding the word management to describe the covered activities. We 

agreed and have made that change. DOD also stated that implementation of this 

recommendation for other than current, on-going efforts, will be subject to the 

availability of funds. We believe that adequate funding needs to be ensured so that 

efforts to develop spectrum automation tools proceed in a coordinated, logical 

manner and provide managers with effective tools to address spectrum supportability 

considerations. 

DOD also partially concurred with our second set of recommendations. DOD 

commented that it has a process in place for oversight and enforcement of spectrum 

management in the acquisition process that includes mechanisms to minimize 

programs proceeding beyond Milestone B without spectrum certification. DOD also 

indicated that the absence of certification should not preclude moving past that 

milestone. While we agree with DOD that a process does exist, our review confirms 

that the process is not being effectively followed and weapon programs do not 

address spectrum supportability issues until the later stages of development when 

addressing those issues can be much more costly. Without stronger enforcement and 

accountability, it is unlikely defense program managers will change their behaviors, 

which are motivated by the need to move through program milestones in order to 

achieve the next funding increment. Stronger enforcement and oversight would 

ensure the program obtains spectrum knowledge early in product development and 

increase the likelihood of success. 

DOD also provided technical comments to a draft of this report that we incorporated 

where appropriate. 

- - - - - 

Unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further 

distribution of this letter until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will 

send copies of this letter to the Secretary of Defense; Secretary of the Air Force; 

Secretary of the Army; Secretary of the Navy; Commandant of the Marine Corps; 

Director, Office of Management and Budget; and interested congressional 

committees. We will also make copies available to other interested parties upon 

request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 
Page 5 GAO-03-617R Defense Spectrum Management 

Please contact me at (202) 512-4841 or John Oppenheim at (202) 512-3111 if you or 

your staff have any questions concerning this report. Other major contributors to this 

report were Julie Leetch, Gary Middleton, Jay Tallon, and Bruce Thomas. 

Katherine V. Schinasi 

Director 

Acquisition and Sourcing Management 
Defense Spectrum Issues

Briefing for House and Senate 

Armed Services Committee Staff

2

Defense Spectrum Issues

Outline

• Key Questions

• Background 

• Findings

• Recommendations
3

Defense Spectrum Issues

Key Questions

How Effectively Are Spectrum Supportability Considerations Being Addressed in Weapon System 

Acquisitions?

1. What Are the Results of the DOD Spectrum Certification Processes and Procedures? 

2. Why Were Those Results Experienced?

3. What Are the Barriers to Improving the Consideration of Spectrum Supportability?

4

Defense Spectrum Issues

Background: The Spectrum Basics

• Radio Frequency Spectrum Is a Finite Resource

3⁄4 Runs from 3 KHz to 300 GHz

3⁄4 Divided in the U.S. & Possessions into Segments for Government 

Exclusive, Nongovernment Exclusive, and Shared Use

 Divided into Segments (Bands) for Specific Types of Services, e.g., Aeronautical 

Radionavigation. Some Segments Better Suited for Particular Uses Than 

Others.

 Bands May be Designated for More Than One Type of Service with Some 

Services Being Designated Primary Use and Others Secondary (i.e., to Occur on 

a Noninterference Basis)

3⁄4 Spectrum Standards Set Technical Restrictions on Operation within a 

Given Frequency Band

• Demand and Competition for Radio Frequency Spectrum Are Growing 

Due to New Technologies and Increased Uses of Spectrum

• Spectrum Is a Resource that Is Critical to the Development and 

Operation of Many Types of Military Systems
5

Defense Spectrum Issues

Background: International and National Spectrum Management

• Spectrum Is Managed through Different International and National Policies and 

Organizations

• International Spectrum Management

3⁄4 Regions and Countries Define Segments and Uses Differently

3⁄4 International Telecommunication Union Provides a Forum for International 

Coordination

3⁄4 World Radiocommunication Conferences Are Held Every 2 to 3 Years to Address 

International Spectrum Allocations

3⁄4 U.S. Must Receive Host Nation Approval to Operate Communication-Electronics 

Systems in Foreign Nations

• National Spectrum Management

3⁄4 National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) Manual of 

Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management

3⁄4 OMB Circular A-11

• Systems Deemed to be “Major” Are Required to be Submitted to the NTIA for Coordination with 

Other Existing Government and Commercial Spectrum Users

3⁄4 Federal Communications Commission 

• An Independent Government Agency to Control and Manage Civilian Use of the Spectrum

6

Defense Spectrum Issues

Background: The DOD Spectrum Certification Process

• Various DOD Directives, Instructions, and Requirements 

Further Define the Spectrum Certification Process for Weapon 

System Development and Acquisitions

3⁄4 DOD’s Acquisition Guidance (DOD 5000 Series) Incorporates 

Consideration of Spectrum Supportability into the Acquisition Process

• Recently Revised Guidance Maintains Spectrum Supportability Requirements, Though 

Much of the Language Regarding Spectrum Has Been Removed

3⁄4 Defense Spectrum Certification Guidance

• DOD Directive 4650.1 – Developers Shall Obtain Military Communications and Electronics Board (MCEB) Guidance as Early as Possible during the Acquisition 

Process. . . Required Prior to Contract for Full-Scale Development

3⁄4 Service Spectrum Certification Guidance 

• To Address Their Individual and Specialized Missions, Each of the Services Has Its 

Own Spectrum Supportability Guidance Implementing DOD Directive 4650.1
7

Defense Spectrum Issues

Background: The DOD Spectrum Certification Process

• Program Developers and Acquirers Are to Submit Requests for Spectrum 

Approval (DD Form 1494) for Review/Certification by the Service Frequency 

Management Offices and the MCEB

3⁄4 Review Is Intended to Determine Whether Adequate Spectrum Will Be Available to 

Support System Operation and Whether Systems Comply with the Spectrum 

Standards for their Chosen Bands

3⁄4 Certification Is Generally Required to Operate System in a Designated Portion of the 

Radio Frequency Spectrum

• Applications for Spectrum Certification Can Be Made at Four Stages

3⁄4 Stage 1: Conceptual 

3⁄4 Stage 2: Experimentation 

3⁄4 Stage 3: Developmental 

3⁄4 Stage 4: Operational 

• A Goal of Early Stage Assessments Is to Provide Feedback That Can Be 

Factored into Development

8

Defense Spectrum Issues

Background: The DOD Spectrum Certification Process

• The Spectrum Certification Assessment Is Intended to Provide 

Knowledge of Spectrum Supportability and Enable:

3⁄4 Feedback to Developers on Planned Spectrum Usage and Proposed 

Equipment’s Technical Characteristics and Compliance with Spectrum Standards

3⁄4 Mitigation or Resolution of Electromagnetic Interference Problems

3⁄4 Siting of New DOD or Commercial Systems on Ships, Aircraft, in Space, and at 

Shore Sites

3⁄4 Integration of Commercial Items into the Intense Electromagnetic Environment 

Found on Military Platforms and Installations

3⁄4 Frequency Assignments for DOD Operations, Exercises, and Training

3⁄4 Coordination with Foreign (Host) Nations for Use of DOD Systems Overseas
9

Defense Spectrum Issues

Background: The DOD Spectrum Certification Process CONTRACTOR

(Provides technical (Provides technical (Provides technical (Provides technical 

information on equipment)information on equipment) information on equipment)

PROGRAM OFFICEPROGRAM OFFICE PROGRAM OFFICE

(Reviews and/or subm its (Reviews and/or subm its (Reviews and/or submits (Reviews and/or submits 

technical information on technical information on technical information on technical information on 

Government DD Form 1494)Government DD Form 1494) Government DD Form 1494)

SPONSORINGSPONSORING SPONSORING

Military Department (MILDEP) Military Department (MILDEP) Military Department (MILDEP) Military Department (MILDEP) 

/ Frequency M anagement / Frequency M anagement / Frequency Management / Frequency Management 

Office (FMO)Office (FMO) Office (FMO)

(Reviews, Approves & Submits (Reviews, Approves & Submits 

DD Form 1494)DD Form 1494) DD Form 1494)

MCEB ESG PWGMCEB ESG PWG MCEB ESG PWG

(Assembles MCEB Guidance; e.g., comments Assembles MCEB Guidance; e.g., comments Assembles MCEB Guidance; e.g., comments Assembles MCEB Guidance; e.g., comments 

from MILDEPs from MILDEPs MILDEPs, SPS, MILDEPs, SPS, COCOMs , SPS, COCOMs, DOD Area , DOD Area , DOD Area , DOD Area 

Frequency Coordinators, Host Nations, etc)Frequency Coordinators, Host Nations, etc) Frequency Coordinators, Host Nations, etc)

Joint Spectrum CenterJoint Spectrum Center Joint Spectrum Center

(Distributes (Distributes (Distributes Releasable (Distributes ReleasableReleasable Releasable DD 

FM 1494 Technical Data)FM 1494 Technical Data) FM 1494 Technical Data)

NTIA 

InterdepartmentInterdepartment Interdepartment

Radio Advisory Radio Advisory Radio Advisory Radio Advisory 

Committee (IRAC)Committee (IRAC) Committee (IRAC)

Spectrum Planning Spectrum Planning Spectrum Planning Spectrum Planning 

Subcommittee (SPS)Subcommittee (SPS) Subcommittee (SPS)

(Review & Comment) (Review & Comment) (Review & Comment) (Review & Comment) 

Joint Spectrum CenterJoint Spectrum Center Joint Spectrum Center

(Assembles Final Technical (Assembles Final Technical (Assembles Final Technical (Assembles Final Technical 

Documents with com ments, Updates Database, Documents with com ments, Updates Database, Documents with comments, Updates Database, Documents with comments, Updates Database, 

and Makes Worldwide DOD Distribution) and Makes Worldwide DOD Distribution)

Combatant Command Combatant Command Combatant Command Combatant Command 

(COCOM) (COCOM)

(Comment /Approve) (Comment /Approve)

Combined Com munications Combined Com munications Combined Communications Combined Communications 

Electronics Board (CCEB) Electronics Board (CCEB) Electronics Board (CCEB) Electronics Board (CCEB) 

Nations Nations

(Comment /Approve)(Comment /Approve) (Comment /Approve)

Host & other nations within Host & other nations within Host & other nations within Host & other nations within 

COCOM Area Of ResponsibilityCOCOM Area Of Responsibility COCOM Area Of Responsibility

(Com ment/Approve)(Com ment/Approve) (Comment/Approve)

Comments & Feedback

response submittal

M CEB Equipment M CEB Equipment MCEB Equipment MCEB Equipment 

Spectrum Guidance Spectrum Guidance Spectrum Guidance Spectrum Guidance 

Permanent W orking Permanent W orking Permanent Working Permanent Working 

Group (ESG PWG)Group (ESG PWG) Group (ESG PWG)

Coordination within the U.S. Coordination within the U.S. Coordination within the U.S. Coordination within the U.S. 

and its “Possessions”and its “Possessions” and its “Possessions”

Status

Comments

Coordination Outside the Coordination Outside the Coordination Outside the Coordination Outside the 

U.S. and its“Possessions”U.S. and its“Possessions” U.S. and its“Possessions”

Distribution of Final Forms

DOD Spectrum Certification Process

10

Defense Spectrum Issues

Findings: DOD Spectrum Certification Process Results

• The DOD Has a Long-Standing Spectrum Certification Process. Failures to 

Follow the Process Have Led to Problems in Weapon System Development 

and Operations. These Problems are Due to Factors Both Inherent and 

External to the Process.

• In the Past, System Developers Have Failed to Acquire Knowledge of Spectrum 

Supportability or Act Upon It Early in the Process Resulting in:

3⁄4 Significant Delays and Limitations

3⁄4 Degraded System Performance

3⁄4 Increased Acquisition Risk

3⁄4 Higher Cost

• Consequences of Such Failures Have Been Documented in the Following Reports:

3⁄4 1987 GAO Report (GAO/NSIAD-87-42, February 9, 1987)

3⁄4 1993 DOD CIM Modeling Study of DOD Management and Use of the Electromagnetic Spectrum 

Interim Report (August 1993)

3⁄4 1998 DOD Inspector General Report (Report No. 99-009, October 9, 1998)

3⁄4 DOD Comptroller’s Fiscal Year 2000 Annual Statement of Assurance

3⁄4 Defense Science Board Task Force Report Coping with Change: Managing RF Spectrum to Meet 

DOD Needs (November 2000)
11

Defense Spectrum Issues

Findings: DOD Spectrum Certification Process Results

• Some Examples of Systems That Failed to Adequately Develop, Consider, 

or Act on Spectrum Supportability Knowledge – Resulting in Recent 

Operational Delays and Limitations or the Need for System Redesign –

Include: 

3⁄4 B-2 Radar - The B-2 Radar Is Being Redesigned Due to High Probability of Interference 

with Primary Users in the Fielded Radar System’s Frequency Band

3⁄4 Enhanced Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS) / Situational Awareness Data Link 

(SADL) - EPLRS/SADL Operates in a Band Not Authorized for Such Equipment Resulting 

in Significant Spectrum Supportability Issues Both in the U.S. and in Host Nations. 

Currently, Not Allowed to be Used in Germany or Korea 

3⁄4 Global Hawk/Commercial SATCOM Data Links – Under Current U.S. Regulations, Global 

Hawk’s Commercial SATCOM Data Links, Which Operate in Exclusive Nongovernment

Fixed Satellite Service Bands, Cannot be Certified and Must Operate on a Noninterference 

Basis

3⁄4 Remote Ordinance Neutralization System (RONS) - Procurement Proceeded without 

Operational Certification Resulting in Systems Being Fielded with Significant Limitations 

Before System Reconfiguration

12

Defense Spectrum Issues

Findings: DOD Spectrum Certification Process Results

• Based on Our Review of Recent Acquisitions, Timely 

Consideration of Spectrum Supportability Continues to Be a 

Problem

3⁄4 Majority of Initial Filings Come in at Later Stages of System Development

3⁄4 Filings Made Significantly After Frequency Bands Identified by Developers

3⁄4 Filings Not Approved by Time of Research & Development (R&D) Contract 

Award

• Navy’s AN/APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radar

• Air Force’s PICOSat Mission

3⁄4 Initial or Accurate Filings Made After R&D Contract Award

• Airport Surveillance and Precision Approach Radar Control System (ASPARCS)

• Naval Space Surveillance System (NSSS)

3⁄4 Filings Not Made by Time of Equipment Purchase or Fielding

• Global Positioning System Re-Radiating Kits

• U.S. Army Pacific Command Tri-Band SAT COM C4ISR Tri-Band Terminals
13

Defense Spectrum Issues

Findings: DOD Spectrum Certification Results

• Even When Developers Seek Guidance – Feedback May Be 

Ignored

3⁄4 Common Low Observable Verification System (CLOVerS)

3⁄4 Force Protection Airborne Surveillance System (FPASS) – Force Protection Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

3⁄4 AN/SRC-59 Shipwide Interior Wireless Communications 

System

14

Defense Spectrum Issues

Findings: Why Spectrum Consideration Problems Happen

• Reasons for Failing to Obtain Guidance Early Include:

3⁄4 A Lack of Clarity in the Guidance for Early Stage Filings and Alignment 

with Current Acquisition Models

3⁄4 A Lack of an Enforcement Mechanism

3⁄4 A Lack of an Effective Means for the Spectrum Management 

Community to Identify Spectrum-Dependent Programs

3⁄4 A Lack of Spectrum Supportability Awareness by Program Managers
15

Defense Spectrum Issues

Findings: Why Spectrum Consideration Problems Happen

• Reasons for Failing to Obtain Guidance Early (cont.) 

3⁄4 Due to Trade-offs in Program Decision-Making to Reach Program 

Objectives Such As: 

• A Function of Development Approach 

• The Acquisition of Commercial-Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Equipment

• The Belief that Filings Should Be Made After Detailed System Technical 

Parameters Can Be Defined

• A Function of Resource Constraints

• Reasons Developers May Ignore Feedback

3⁄4 Misguided Reliance on Prior History

• Shipwide Interior Wireless Communications System

• Force Protection Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

16

Defense Spectrum Issues

Findings: Why Spectrum Consideration Problems Happen

• R&D Contracts Awarded without Approved Guidance

Reasons Include:

3⁄4 A Failure to File Early Enough to Meet Program Schedules

3⁄4 A Function of the Inability of the Certification Process to Provide 

Timely Results

3⁄4 A Failure of Enforcement

• AF PICOSat

• AN/APG-79 AESA Radar

• R&D Contract Awarded without Accurate Filing

3⁄4 Revised Certification Applications Not Filed Until After Contract Award

• Naval Space Surveillance System
17

Defense Spectrum Issues

Findings: Barriers to Improvement

• DOD Faces a Number of Current and Future Challenges to the 

Improvement of Spectrum Supportability Consideration

• Current Challenges Include:

3⁄4 DOD Doesn’t Keep Metrics Assessing Process Performance

• Number of Certifications Completed v. Number of R&D Contracts Awarded

• Timeliness of Filings

• Cycle Time

3⁄4 No Clear Focus Who within DOD Acquisition Community Provides 

Oversight for the Execution of Spectrum Supportability in Acquisition 

Process

• Spectrum Issues Viewed Solely As the Responsibility of the Command, 

Control, Communications and Intelligence (C3I) Community

18

Defense Spectrum Issues

Findings: Barriers to Improvement 

• Current Challenges (cont.)

3⁄4 Push to Commercial Spectrum Challenges the Current Process

• Commercial SATCOM

• Tri-Band Terminals

3⁄4 Host Nation Approval Process

• Decisions Regarding Use of Spectrum Are Sovereign and Subject to

Change without Notice 

• Some Nations Do Not Want to See Early Filings

3⁄4 A Lack of a Common Tool for Program Decision-Making

• Lack of a Spectrum Certification Automation Architecture and Funding
19

Defense Spectrum Issues

Findings: Barriers to Improvement 

• Future Challenges

3⁄4 Current Spectrum Certification Process Not Seen As Supporting 

Evolutionary Acquisition/Spiral Development Time Frames

• Prior Studies – 1999 Air Force Scientific Advisory Board

• Service Indicated Lead Times

• Interviews

• Examples

3⁄4 Current Processes May Not Support Certification of Cutting Edge 

Technology

• Software Defined Radios

• Ultrawide Band Systems

20

Defense Spectrum Issues

DOD Actions Addressing These Issues

• The DOD Spectrum Management Community Has Undertaken a Number of Efforts to 

Address Some of the Identified Issues, but More Is Needed by Spectrum and 

Acquisition Management Communities

3⁄4 DOD Strategic Plan for Department of Defense Spectrum Management, December 3, 2002, 

which among other things established goal of improving spectrum management

3⁄4 Department of the Navy Chief Information Officer – Published Strategic Vision for Spectrum which among other things establishes need to consider spectrum requirements in system 

development

3⁄4 Defense Spectrum Office – Leading a spectrum supportability initiative to improve the spectrum certification process

3⁄4 Army Spectrum Management Office – Contracted with SI International to Make 

Recommendations on How to Improve the Army’s Spectrum Certification and Frequency Assignment Request Processes

3⁄4 Air Force Air Combat Command – Created a Host Nation Spectrum Worldwide Database and a Risk Assessment Tool for Program Managers

3⁄4 Joint Spectrum Center – Along with the Defense Spectrum Office, cooperatively working with the Combatant Commands, Joint Staff, and Military Services to formally document 

requirements for a Spectrum Supportability System (funding for development of the system 

has not yet been identified)
21

Defense Spectrum Issues

Summary Observations

• Compliance With the Process Is No Assurance That Systems 

Can Be Used to Full Capabilities

3⁄4 May Be Due to Technical Constraints, Host Nation Restrictions, etc.

• Early Assessment Affords Opportunity to Better Manage 

Programmatic and Operational Risks

• Currently, Many Systems Do Not Consider Spectrum 

Supportability Until Late in Development/Fielding When 

Problems Are More Difficult to Deal with

• Opportunities Exist to Improve Spectrum Supportability

22

Defense Spectrum Issues

Recommendations

To ensure that spectrum supportability considerations are appropriately addressed in the 

development and acquisition of weapon systems, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense 

• Direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence; and appropriate 

service officials to update the spectrum supportability guidance contained in their respective 

spectrum management and acquisition policy directives and instructions to

3⁄4 Ensure program managers develop spectrum supportability knowledge, apply for spectrum 

certification, and consider of spectrum operational risks at the earliest points possible,

3⁄4 Provide uniformity of spectrum management policies across the services, and

3⁄4 Provide a spectrum certification process with the flexibility to align with current acquisition 

models. 

• Measure spectrum management compliance and process performance to determine how well 

spectrum supportability considerations are addressed in the acquisition process.

• Establish and ensure appropriate funding for a program of record to develop a spectrum 

management automation architecture and to implement current and future spectrum management 

automation development efforts. 
23

Defense Spectrum Issues

Recommendations

We also recommend that the Secretary of Defense identify an official or officials within the Office 

of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to

• Be accountable for oversight and enforcement of spectrum management in the acquisition 

process, 

• Establish a mechanism to identify to the spectrum management community new systems that 

may ultimately require spectrum certification, 

• Establish a mechanism that provides the spectrum management community program schedule 

data for systems that may require spectrum certification both to facilitate their prioritization of work 

effort and enable measurement of process enforcement and responsiveness, and 

• Establish a mechanism to ensure—in line with DOD Directive 4650.1—that programs requiring 

spectrum certification do not proceed beyond Milestone B of the acquisition process without 

approved spectrum certification. In order to allow acquisition flexibility when required, waivers 

may be allowed by the official or officials identified within the Office of the Under Secretary based 

on appropriate cause, risk mitigation strategy, and compliance deadline. 

24

Defense Spectrum Issues

Backup Slides
25

Defense Spectrum Issues

Recent Changes to DOD 5000 Series

3⁄4 Previous DOD Directive 5000.1

“Program managers shall give full consideration to all aspects of system support, including ... spectrum management and the operational electromagnetic environment.”

3⁄4 Current Draft DOD Directive 5000.1

“Acquisition managers shall provide U.S. Forces with systems and families of systems that are secure, reliable, interoperable, compatible 

with the electromagnetic spectrum environment, and able to 

communicate across a universal information technology infrastructure, 

including ....”

26

Defense Spectrum Issues

DOD 5000 Series (cont.)

3⁄4Previous DOD Instruction 5000.2

“All programs shall ...be designed to be mutually compatible with other electric or electronic equipment and the operational 

electromagnetic environment...be certified for spectrum supportability....”

“Prior to approving entry into System Development and Demonstration at Milestone B, the MDA shall consider ... whether 

an application for frequency allocation has been made (if the system will require utilization of the electromagnetic 

spectrum)....”

“Prior to making the milestone [C] decision, the MDA shall consider...whether an application for frequency allocation has 

been approved (for systems that require utilization of the electromagnetic spectrum)....”

“The PM shall ensure that a flexible, performance-oriented strategy to sustain systems is developed and executed. This 

strategy will include consideration of the full scope of operational support, such as... spectrum supportability....”

Table 1: 

3⁄4Current Draft DOD Directive 5000.2 makes table reference only

MS B

MS C (if no MS B)

47 U.S.C.§305 (reference (ar))

Pub. L. 102-538 §104 (reference (as))

47 U.S.C. §901-904 (reference (at))

Application for Frequency Allocation (DD 

Form 1494) (applicable to all 

systems/equipment that require utilization 

of the electromagnetic spectrum)

MS B

MS C (if no MS B)

47 U.S.C. 305, reference (y)

Pub. L. 102-538, 104, reference (z)

47 U.S.C. 901-904, reference (aa)

DOD Directive 4650.1, reference (aa)

OMB Circular A-11, Part 2, reference (b)

Spectrum Certification Compliance (DD 

Form 1494) (applicable to all 

systems/equipment that require utilization 

of the electromagnetic spectrum)
27

Defense Spectrum Issues

DOD 5000 Series (cont.)

• Missile Defense and Space Communities Developing Their 

Own Acquisition Processes Outside the DOD 5000 Series
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily 

E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents.

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs